Talk:Getty Foundation/Archives/2014

getty

my father is william getty, he bears a striking resemblence to jp getty. he is going to be 70 on 19/05/09. any thoughts how i can indulge him? thanks linda (burgessdevine@yahoo.co.uk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Getty Foundation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A good article is

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good article nominations are reviewed for the above as well as for— Clean-up tags If there are valid clean-up tags on your article, including Cleanup, POV, Copyedit, Trivia, External links and multiple Fact tags, then you need to address the issue(s) raised before nominating the article. Stability If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as: an edit war among regular editors, frequent editing due to a current event, a major expansion or reorganization (either underway or being planned), or proposed merges and splits, then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article.Instability If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as: an edit war among regular editors, frequent editing due to a current event, a major expansion or reorganization (either underway or being planned), or proposed merges and splits, then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article. Article length Although there is no set guideline on article length for GAs, it is best for the article not to be too short or so long that there is not enough focus on the topic. The article should be broad, covering multiple areas to give readers an overview of the topic. Summarized lead The lead (introduction) should summarize the topic by touching on all of the various sections within the article. For articles of various lengths, guidelines recommend that the lead range from one to four paragraphs. Images Carefully scrutinize any non-free images against WP:FUC. Non-free images may be used only if their exclusion would impair a reader's understanding of the article. Non-free images must be low resolution (less than 300 pixels vertically or horizontally). This is the equivalent of 0.1 megapixels, as described here. Non-free images with higher resolutions must explain why this is necessary. and include detailed fair use rationales. On the image page, ensure that the rationale specifies the article that the image will be used for. Look at similar articles that have reached GA/FA status for examples. The use of images should comply with WP:MOS#Images and WP:CAPTIONS. If possible, use only free images that are available/applicable to the article's topic. Look for images already located on related Wikipedia articles or search Wikimedia Commons. If there are no images available, consider uploading an image of your own if you have the permission or ask the permission of an author of an image on websites such as Flickr. Inline citations Articles are expected to be well-supported by reliable sources. While it is not necessary to provide a source for every single sentence or any common knowledge facts, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires a source to be named for all direct quotations and any statement that a reader is likely to dispute, such as statistical information (ex: 47% of all goods were sold; 3 million people attended the event; the city sustained $588 million in damages). Editors may use any style of referencing and any method of presenting citations that they choose, so long as the article is internally consistent. Well-developed articles generally use some form of inline referencing, which allows the readers and future editors to identify which specific source(s) support any given statement. The two most common inline reference styles are footnotes and parenthetical references. The footnote system uses <ref> tags to create a clickable link following the assertion that it supports. Either full citations or shortened citations followed by an alphabetical list of full citations may be used. The footnoted citations are collected with the <references /> tag in a section towards the end of the article. When using the footnote system, a source can be re-used by naming it: <ref name="Exampletitle">. This prevents you from having to retype the entire citation each time. See WP:REFNAME for more details. The parenthetical system places the full citation in an alphabetical, bulleted list near the end of the article. Within the article text, a shortened citation names the author, (usually) year, and page number in parentheses, like this: (Ritter 2002, p. 45). If parenthetical references are used inline, then the footnote system can be easily used for any necessary explanatory notes. Citations to online materials should be written out in full, in whatever style you are using, instead of simply including a bare URL. Whether you choose to manually format the full citation or use a citation template is your choice. Both of these examples (at lines #1 and #2) produce identical-looking citations for the reader (shown at #3): Tanner, Lindsey. (08 February 2008) [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy"] at [[USAToday.com]]. Retrieved on 10 February 2008. {{cite news |last=Tanner |first=Lindsey |title=Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy |publisher=[[USAToday|USAToday.com]] |date= 08 February 2008 |url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm |accessdate=10 February 2008}} Tanner, Lindsey (08 February 2008). "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy". USAToday.com. Retrieved 10 February 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Whatever method you use for formatting, providing full citations is strongly preferred to providing only a bare URL, which appears to the reader as either this: [1] or as http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm When trying to find sources of information for an article, use a variety of resources such as books, websites, newspapers, journals, interviews, etc. Consider using a local library for researching information in printed resources. To find online resources, use websites such as news aggregators and Google Scholar, online databases, and search engine searches. If you find a dead link for a source, the Internet Archive may be able to provide an earlier version of the article. Other options for finding information include asking members of a related WikiProject, asking experts of the topic you are researching, or asking editors who have edited similar or related articles. Brief fixes Although the Manual of Style is comprehensive in improving every aspect of an article, a nomination does not need to meet every MoS guideline to reach GA status. However, the more accurately and uniformly the article follows these guidelines, the greater the benefit for its readers. A few common Manual of Style errors are listed below. Avoid contractions (such as wouldn't, can't, should've, etc.) within the article unless they are part of a direct quote. Measurements should include both the customary and metric units. Consider using the Convert template for easier editing. When using abbreviations make sure they are explained at their first occurrence in the article. When wikilinking, make sure that dates are only linked when relevant and avoid overlinking common knowledge terms and topics. See WP:CONTEXT and MOS:UNLINKDATES for guidelines. Also, ensure that the wikilink directs the reader to the correct article instead of a disambiguation page. Single sentences or very brief paragraphs normally shouldn't stand alone. Either attempt to expand on them by adding more information or going into greater detail or incorporate the paragraph with another section. Language use should be consistent. Editors contributing from different countries tend to use their own spelling conventions, which can result in, for example, use of "theatre" and "theater" in the same article. Analyze the existing prose and the topic's context to determine which variant should be used. Ensure tense remains consistent. For instance, if you say "Bob said hi," then all future commentary should be in the past tense ("Jane agreed and said hello" as opposed to "Jane says hello"). Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. An article that is filled with a large number of lists can be difficult to read and will not flow very well. External links Ensure the external links conform to WP:External links guidelines. Location of links Such links belong either in an infobox or in the last section on the page, which should be titled "External links"; they should not be present in the body of the article. One common error is linking company websites or stock trading websites to the names of things mentioned in the text, like this: "Meta-Wiki is an organization that..." or "Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) is a publicly traded company". Such links should be moved to the appropriate infobox and/or external links section instead. Choice of links If the subject of the article has an official website, that website should normally be linked. Otherwise, do not include too many external links, but consider providing enough high-quality links that a reader could easily find more information on the topic. Webpages that are used to support text in an article should generally not be duplicated in the external links section. No article is required to have any external links, and every external link must be justifiable. Common errors are listed at WP:ELNO.

Review

This review is stopped. No conclusion made. Re-adding to nomination page.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We are seeking an "second opinion" so that someone can pick up this review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC) {|class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" |- valign="top" ! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute ! | Review Comment |- valign="top" | | 1. Well-written: | |- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |

• In the middle of the Grants section there are two sets of brackets []. I am unclear of why they are there.

|- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |

• Lead section is not a concise overview of the article
• In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed. The first section, which comprises nearly 90 % of the article is a lengthy list not to GA standards. Most of that section is simply listing some of the grants given out.
• The ISBN numbers amount to external links and do not belong in the body of the work.

|- valign="top" | | 2. Verifiable with no original research: | |- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |

|- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |

|- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 2c. it contains no original research. |

|- valign="top" | | 3. Broad in its coverage: | |- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |

|- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |

|- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |

|- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |

|- valign="top" | | 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | |- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |

|- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |

|- style="vertical-align:top;" | | 7. Overall assessment. |

|}

Thank you for reviewing the article. Whatever you can do to expedite it, I would appreciate. If possible, I would like to work with you to complete it today. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• The [] brackets within a quote indicate that letters were removed. If an original text said "received" and the quote is changed for grammar purposes it should read "receive[]".
• I believe that the bullet lists in the article comply with WP:EMBED, but I am willing to hear your views and will let you make the final call.
• The inclusion of an ISBN number in a mention of a book is allowed an encouraged. Here we have an embedded list of three books, each with an ISBN number. Again, I welcome your views.
• Is there something that should be covered by this article that I have left out? We have a cluster of articles about the Getty Trust and its various programs and museums, all of which I am trying to get to GA. I only have two articles left to be reviewed —- this one and the Getty Research Institute. I believed I have covered all aspects of the Foundation in this article in a focused manner. Please advise.

Why are you changing quotes?.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to request a time limit on a review or make requests that hinder or pressure a reviewer.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is being placed on temporary hold. Nominator should not feel obligated to answer the above questions from the reviewer at this time or make further changes for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not in any way trying to hinder or pressure you, but it would be nice if we could cooperate to complete the review. The quotes have been changed with the bracket notation to render the entire sentence grammatical. This is standard procedure and consistent with the MOS. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no urgency in a review or GA listing. Please be patient. I do not understand the the rush.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I just now noticed the comment that the "reviewer cooperate". That is pretty good illustration of the entire situation here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I said "we could cooperate" and I certainly do not wish an adversary relationship with any reviewer. You asked why there were square brackets in the quotations, and I explained that the quotes were changed. You asked why the quotes were changed, and I explained that it was to render the sentence grammatical. I do not understand why you have added <gallery> Image:Example.jpg|Caption1 Image:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery> </gallery> to the top of this review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Getty Foundation/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SarahStierch (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a nice, simply written article that provides a basic and stable encyclopedic review of the Getty Foundation. It's layout is easily readable as well.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No photos really available, logo, etc. Fine with no image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The only addition I could see to this is an organization infobox perhaps?